|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 09/02/2007 : 18:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dv82matt
How can skepticism be applied to itself? |
Easily, by asking if skepticism is a useful tool for leading us towards something resembling truth. In other words, we question the utility of skepticism to reach the goal for it set by skeptics. |
It can be naively applied in a sense but doing so is tautalogical and thus not meaningful. In fact doing so contradicts a logical basis of skepticism and thus it is not actually skepticism that is being applied. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:13:49 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Honestly, marf, how many people would answer "yes" to the question, "do you believe that a poetic contemplation of great mysteries of life and existence exists?" Most, it seems to me, would stutter in confusion - even the ones who understand the concept - because the question becomes malformed when applied to things which are not deities. |
The part I highlighted in bold if of greatest interest to me. I don't think most people think about this stuff this deeply or ever even bother trying to pin it down into such articulated terms, largely because they regard such activity as pointless or because they aren't smart enough in that way. I am simply trying to put my own observations into words.
If we really get down to it, in my deep down heart of hearts, I consider a goodly number of self-declared “theists” to actually be atheists when it comes to literal beliefs. But I respect them and common language enough to engage in a dialogue which uses terminology on their terms if we are talking about them. What's more, I think most educated and modern theists are much closer to skeptics (such as the likes of Bidlack) than fundies, and yet in these conversations they are discussed as if they are a nearly non-existant or inconsequential minority.
| Look, if you walked up to someone on the street who had such a god-concept and simply asked, "do you believe in god?" and they simply replied, "yes," then they'd be the ones confusing the issue because they know that their god-concept differs - quite radically - from the norm. |
What differs from the norm depends on what norm one is exposed to. What you say in this paragraph applies to someone who lives among fundamentalists. But my experience is totally different. I live in an urban area and mostly talk about these things with liberals, and I have been laughed at several times for assuming that the person who says they believe in god believes in a literal and clearly definable god.
| I don't think there's any question that the idea that "a god-concept might be a useful psychological tool" is compatible with skepticism |
Then I suppose we agree and we just haven't been understanding each other.
| But both Bidlack and the fundies share one thought: "god exists." |
I see “belief” in god as a gradation with hard-core fundamentalists at one end at total self-declared atheists at the other. The thing is, in a way these two extremes more resemble each other than the position in the center because both the hard core atheist and the fundy keep the god-concept literal and rational. (BTW, this is not at all to imply that fundies and atheists have an equal hold on truth on the question over a literal God. Fundies make literal claims that are clearly disputed by tons of evidence, so their positions are inferior in that regard.)
| No, you simply need to show that the faith of these people you're bringing up is the same sort of faith in the existence as we've been |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:22:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
It can be naively applied in a sense but doing so is tautalogical and thus not meaningful. In fact doing so contradicts a logical basis of skepticism and thus it is not actually skepticism that is being applied. |
Well, you didn't ask if it could be done meaningfully. 
Seriously, point taken. But dogmatism is what dglas was using as a comparison. There's no need to approach skepticism dogmatically. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 19:37:53 [Permalink]
|
Dave also wrote: | That's exactly my point: Bidlack has compartmentalized to eliminate the obvious conflict between a belief in the existence of god and skepticism. |
Is it conflict or are the two types of claims profoundly different kinds of claims?
| Yes, some physicists take things too far, also. |
They're not taking it too far, they're taking it somewhere else. What I mean is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that these kind of claims are not claims of fact about the natural world. The supernatural – which many atheists will say is nonsense – is the mystery. I do think it is a bad thing when they get confused with claims of fact by skeptics and believers alike.
Certain religious claims, certain god-concepts are neither metaphor nor scientific claims. They are their own thing. That is why Bidlack brought up his personal tragedies, despite his uncomfortableness, and despite his vulnerability in doing so. As someone heavily involved in skepticism, he knew he was giving his critics ammo to attack him further. And yet he felt he must in order to be honest and give a whole picture. Does that mean that he was saying that strong emotions inspired by tragedy are good evidence for faith, or is he instead struggling to put into words the nature of his faith as neither mere metaphor or a scientific claim of fact? Consider what Matt wrote: | Well you must at least restrict your skepticism to claims of fact though. If you are entirely consistent how do you avoid descending into nihilism? |
Indeed, why should all skeptics draw their lines in the same place? Why is it valid skepticism to restrict your skepticism to claims of fact, but not valid to restrict it to falsifiable claims of fact? To me, the obvious place to start raising serious and loud objections is when peoples' lack of skepticism leads to harm.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/02/2007 19:41:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 20:15:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
| I don't think there's any question that the idea that "a god-concept might be a useful psychological tool" is compatible with skepticism |
Then I suppose we agree and we just haven't been understanding each other. |
I've been understanding you, marf. And you continue to use phrases like "literal belief" and "factual truth of the natural world" to save a hypothesis which, quite frankly, doesn't require saving. That's what I've been trying to get across to you.
The reason it doesn't require saving is that we need to distinguish between those who believe in a magical sky daddy, and those who don't, and all the gradations in between. Each different sort of "claim" (whether universal or personal) needs to be examined on its own, to see if it is consistent and evidenced and all those other good qualities we like in a claim. It was plain to me that this thread began with a naive meaning of "belief in God," and I think we agree that such a belief is incompatible with skepticism.
Bidlack's belief is more complex, because it is of a thing (I hate to label it a "being" even) which wound up our clockwork universe and has let it run unimpeded for these 13.7 billion years. It's something he thinks is true - a personal claim - and even though he's carefully compartmentalized it into something which is completely untestable, we can still look around, see no evidence in its favor, and declare a belief in it as "true" (even just for Bidlack) to be unsupported and so not a tentative conclusion we might arrive at through properly conducted skeptical inquiry.
But whatever god-concept you would like to examine, go ahead and toss it out for review. Because I can tell you that I haven't been posting with only the fundies in mind, but there's a long damn distance on the continuum of belief from them to your progressive friends. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 20:22:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Is it conflict or are the two types of claims profoundly different kinds of claims? |
I think Bidlack's skepticism tells him he shouldn't believe in God, and in his defense of his beliefs, he tells us of the logical fallacies he will use. It's a clear conflict that Bidlack has chosen not only to not resolve, but to celebrate.| Yes, some physicists take things too far, also. |
They're not taking it too far, they're taking it somewhere else. What I mean is, I'm becoming more and more convinced that these kind of claims are not claims of fact about the natural world. The supernatural – which many atheists will say is nonsense – is the mystery. I do think it is a bad thing when they get confused with claims of fact by skeptics and believers alike. |
Again, I know. But show me a claim which is not about the natural world.| To me, the obvious place to start raising serious and loud objections is when peoples' lack of skepticism leads to harm. |
As I already said, if we were to debate the possible harm of a belief before we began criticizing it, then that debate would be all we would do, ever. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2007 : 21:30:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Seriously, point taken. But dogmatism is what dglas was using as a comparison. There's no need to approach skepticism dogmatically.
|
Well dogma is defined as a religious doctrine that is declared as true without proof so in this narrow sense it is impossible to approach skepticism dogmatically. However if "dogmatic" is meant in the sense of an arrogant assertion of foundational principles then calling something dogmatic is merely a subjective value judgement based on the perceived arrogance of the position being advocated. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 03:18:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Gorgo
What exactly is "woo" about libertarian economic philosophy?
|
There is something 'woo' about Shermer's approach to it.
|
This sounds like a good talk, if you are willing. Shall we continue here or begin anew?
|
You mean a discussion about Shermer? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 03:37:09 [Permalink]
|
Bidlack's belief is more complex, because it is of a thing (I hate to label it a "being" even) which wound up our clockwork universe and has let it run unimpeded for these 13.7 billion years. It's something he thinks is true - a personal claim - and even though he's carefully compartmentalized it into something which is completely untestable, we can still look around, see no evidence in its favor, and declare a belief in it as "true" (even just for Bidlack) to be unsupported and so not a tentative conclusion we might arrive at through properly conducted skeptical inquiry.
|
Also a worthless belief. What good does it do you to "believe" in some unevidenced god that has no effect at all on your life? One can think it possible, but why "believe?" |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 05:13:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Also a worthless belief. What good does it do you to "believe" in some unevidenced god that has no effect at all on your life? One can think it possible, but why "believe?" |
Whether true or not beliefs can have an effect on us. The value of a belief can be independent of its truth value. In Bidlack's case his deism appears to have value as a coping mechanism. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 05:21:00 [Permalink]
|
In Bidlack's case his deism appears to have value as a coping mechanism.
|
How does something which has no evidence, and has no ability to affect one's life at all help someone "cope?" And why is creating fantasies in order to "cope" seen as a positive thing? I feel the need to say, because of all the hostility on this seemingly radiating from the owners and moderators of this forum, that I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm asking a question. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 05:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
How does something which has no evidence, and has no ability to affect one's life at all help someone "cope?" |
The belief itself (which does exist) is what causes the effect so the existence or non-existence of God is beside the point.
| And why is creating fantasies in order to "cope" seen as a positive thing? |
On an absolute scale and from a skeptic's perspective it's not, but deism is a pretty minor negative in my view. And if deism helps a person to cope with life better than they'd be able to otherwise then I see it as a net positive. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 05:49:05 [Permalink]
|
And if deism helps a person to cope with life better than they'd be able to otherwise then I see it as a net positive.
|
And again, how would a belief in a deity which has no believed effect on the believer's life in any way, be a way to "cope?" Cope with what? Imaginary, powerless beings?
Again, not being sarcastic here. It seems that you're supporting a mild form of insanity for reasons that seem to be imaginary. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 09/03/2007 05:49:57 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 06:22:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
And again, how would a belief in a deity which has no believed effect on the believer's life in any way, be a way to "cope?" |
It may be that it satifies some deep seated emotional need for purpose or meaning.
Many things, fear of death, hoplessness and despair, and feelings of futility or insecurity are potential candidates.
Imaginary, powerless beings?
Again, not being sarcastic here. |
Fibber
| It seems that you're supporting a mild form of insanity for reasons that seem to be imaginary. |
I prefer mild forms of insanity (to use your inaccurate and loaded word) to extreme forms. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2007 : 06:27:56 [Permalink]
|
It may be that it satifies some deep seated emotional need for purpose or meaning.
|
It may be that this is what causes global warming, too, but what is the evidence, and even if it does "satisfy" what is the evidence that this is healthy? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Is Skepticism Compatible with Belief in God?
